Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Avoid GitPython CVE-2023-40267 #1049

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Avoid GitPython CVE-2023-40267 #1049

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tvalenta
Copy link

Bump GitPython to 3.1.32
Avoids CVE-2023-40267

@sigmavirus24
Copy link
Member

We have a lower bound not a pin thus there is nothing required here.

@tvalenta
Copy link
Author

Perhaps I misunderstand, and I should have worded that comment better as it wasn't intended as a pinned version. In this case, versions < 3.1.32 are vulnerable, and I was intending to only set the lower-bound to the non-vulnerable version. Did I miss something else?

@sigmavirus24
Copy link
Member

Pip will avoid it and anyone doing the bare minimum in managing their dependencies will get this. Dependencies that are not pins (e.g., >=) do not need bumping to avoid issues because we're declaring what the package is compatible with. Many downstreams that repackage bandit will patch older versions to fix CVEs and need the metadata to still allow the older version string

@tvalenta
Copy link
Author

Fair enough, and I totally understand that aspect. It was largely from #1048 that I added this PR since this CVE is related to the previous CVE.

In my situation, I'm dealing with a few repositories that use poetry and the vulnerable GitPython version is still in the poetry.lock file. If I updated the pyproject.toml file to with bandit = ">=1.7.5", the poetry.lock file would still be happy with GitPython 3.1.30 and go on their merry way. But as you point out, it's easy enough for me to address this by poking the poetry.lock file in a different path.

@sigmavirus24
Copy link
Member

#1048 was merged before I could comment.

@tvalenta
Copy link
Author

tvalenta commented Sep 1, 2023

#1048 was merged before I could comment.

Thanks for that clarification, which makes a bunch of sense.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants